While I think you are serious in your belief that you would sacrifice yourself...you would kiss off your family?Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Really?
What empowers you to make that choice? (Honestly...I'm asking)
While I think you are serious in your belief that you would sacrifice yourself...you would kiss off your family?
Really?
What empowers you to make that choice? (Honestly...I'm asking)
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
They're going to die anyway - this is a sacrifice to save the human species. So, what it comes down to is me and mine dying with everyone else or just me and mine dying. Why would I choose to take everyone else with me?
Duh, nothing. This is a juvenile morality thought experiment. I made the only sensible choice and it wasn't particularly difficult to see.What empowers you to make that choice? (Honestly...I'm asking)
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
You make it sound like the choice is between "all life extinct" and "not all life extinct", that is a gross over-simplification.So, in 2 above you would choose to have all life go extinct? That is better than to have some life survive elsewhere.You are being intentionally daft in your hero worship. Too much ideology gets people killed and wrecks whole nations sonny boy. Be careful what you close your eyes and follow without thinking.
Someone asked whether they taught about spreading risks in Economics - actually more talk is done of "opportunity cost" - that which can not be done because something else was done instead. What is the opportunity cost of investing sufficiently to spread life? What are the benefits of spreading life? What is the risk it will be "necessary"?
I would say in order: Massive, negligible, negligible.
-------------------------------
The sacrificing yourself in order to save mankind is a bad analogy, since virtually 100% of mankind would still get destroyed if Earth was. Would you sactifice yourself and 99.9% of all the rest of mankind to save 1 stranger?
Hello, that was the question I asked and the one you were supposed to answer. I didn't realize I was supposed to ask one thing while expecting the answer to something else. Daft indeed.
What you fail to comprehend is that a gigantic, species destroying catastrophe happens on Earth regularly and if humanity manages to avoid destroying itself with your brand of ideology, it will certainly face one of these catastrophes. It may be possible to deal with them reactively and it may not. And if not, then that will be that for humanity. You can't undo it and try again with better contingency planning.Someone asked whether they taught about spreading risks in Economics - actually more talk is done of "opportunity cost" - that which can not be done because something else was done instead. What is the opportunity cost of investing sufficiently to spread life? What are the benefits of spreading life? What is the risk it will be "necessary"?
I would say in order: Massive, negligible, negligible.
The choice I thought I was given was to sacrifice myself and my family to save all of humanity, not some micro-portion of humanity. Is this another hidden question thing?The sacrificing yourself in order to save mankind is a bad analogy, since virtually 100% of mankind would still get destroyed if Earth was. Would you sactifice yourself and 99.9% of all the rest of mankind to save 1 stranger?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Regularly? Define regularly?Hello, that was the question I asked and the one you were supposed to answer. I didn't realize I was supposed to ask one thing while expecting the answer to something else. Daft indeed.
What you fail to comprehend is that a gigantic, species destroying catastrophe happens on Earth regularly and if humanity manages to avoid destroying itself with your brand of ideology, it will certainly face one of these catastrophes. It may be possible to deal with them reactively and it may not. And if not, then that will be that for humanity. You can't undo it and try again with better contingency planning.
Civilised humanity has existed for 10,000 years and homo sapiens for 195,000 years without being destroyed by such a catastrophe and that is without our advanced technology to attempt to save ourselves.
My brand of ideology does nothing to destroy humanity.
The point is, as LittleFuzzy proved above, even were we to start "spreading life", it would only be a micro-portion of humanity for a very long time.The choice I thought I was given was to sacrifice myself and my family to save all of humanity, not some micro-portion of humanity. Is this another hidden question thing?
If the rationale is the succes and long term survival of the species then it doesn't matter if 99% of humanity remains on Earth as that still means millions of people are living not on Earth (at current population numbers we're talking between 60 and 70 million people.) Even a 0.1 or 0.01 percent would be sufficient as long as there's always a sufficiently sized community living at any one place (a couple 1000 is iirc considered sufficient to propagate the species).
So the "spreading life" rationale is not in contradiction with the bulk of humanity staying put. They're both possible at the same time.
That's not the point I recognized. The point I recognized is that no matter what happens, it will almost certainly be easier for the species to survive/deal with it on Earth than it will be for us to survive/handle extra-terran habitation.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Of course it does. Consumerist capitalism is taking us down the road toward extinction and your personal ideology says do nothing about it.
That's an idiotic reason to do nothing. We'd be still living in caves if ancient humanity was motivated the way you advocate.The point is, as LittleFuzzy proved above, even were we to start "spreading life", it would only be a micro-portion of humanity for a very long time.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Actually, there was a really close call, what was it, 100k years ago? Humanity almost went extinct. But I realize that's beside the point.
If it'll take a very long time, we'd better get started right away.The point is, as LittleFuzzy proved above, even were we to start "spreading life", it would only be a micro-portion of humanity for a very long time.
Really, even if you don't buy the 'ensure the survival of the species' argument, the nearly infinite riches right outside our doorstop should be enough to get us going. With current metal demands growing faster than production, those problems could be solved with all the resources just floating around out there. I think most people's time horizons are just too short.
For what it's worth, I'd go.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
In general though, I'm leery of these kind of "champagne socialist" retorts. What do they actually mean? They seem to run with this implicit assumption that everything we do, and everything we adhere to, must be perfectly rational, logical and based on a simple set of premises. (Never mind that many of the people championing these arguments are ardent Christians!)
One human gender is pretty systematically being destroyed in about a third of the globe. The global slave trade, today, sells more slaves per annum than in the hey-day of black slavery. But the right-wingers on this forum have told me, several times, that it's not really worth caring about. Who gives a shit? We got ours, technology is up, quality of life is up, we have the Internets and I have my grain alcohol, so shut up and consume?
Of course we're going to be eclectic about the causes we choose to champion. Dreadnaught met pretty universal bafflement when he got really emotional about taxing inheritance. Minx is worried about brown people, which quite frankly is out of fashion and no one in their right mind (heh) in the West does that. I like science, which thankfully at least has some real-world applications such as smaller iPods, but even so, women are being raped right now. Children, even. And I'm not doing a gods-damned thing about it. So I shouldn't do anything about anything else, either? Thank Cthulhu for this grain alcohol, I suppose.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I prefer the mindless "technology will solve the problems" religion though.
Not really.
It's even better when it's being used to explain why we shouldn't invest in the technology that will solve the problems.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
"Free markets will solve it."
One of the more ignorant mantras ever, especially considering that most dominant economies in history got there by the government promoting the economy. The most visionary elements of free markets have 3-5 years of vision, very rarely 10.
Citation needed.
Wow, that is easy....
Whoops! BS argument, like the one applied to Al Gore. If somebody is doing something positive (by their lights), it is BS to criticize them for doing enough. That's the "pure ideology" fallacy, i.e. it's only acceptable to make a bold policy statement if you take it to an extreme in personal practice. Since the point is "less consumption" not "no consumption," clearly this is just specious and lazy ad hominem.
An important point, the distinction between needs and wants. For Rand, a widget producer, people having a philosophy of "the more widgets the better" is a no-brainer. Hell, he doesn't care what kind of widget. He just wants people to buy so his own wealth will increase.This may or may not apply to Khan specifically, but there were those who thought that RandBlade was the spawn of Cthulhu for putting the wants of the few, (in reality millions upon millions of people) ahead of those of the collective.
Same BS argument wrt extremes. So nobody should ever push for a more humane/environmentalist/sustainable/whatever approach to things because they can't d it perfectly? Yeah, Chaloobi would be much better of eschewing all technology and going into the African bush to work as a Peace Corps volunteer. Compare the success of that group collectively with those who make systemic changes.There are several ironies here, not the least of which is debating the point on an electronic bulletin board, which is certainly indicative of the height of western consumption and narcissism. How many third world children could be provided for by the costs of running these servers alone, the computers used to access the boards, the energy spent maintaining these networks? Is it only noble to care about humanity collectively in vague abstractions, as opposed to concrete actions? Is it really admirable to get worked up over the insensitivity Randblade displayed by caring about himself, his family, and those closest to him as opposed to some distant absorption about humanity entire?
Sound like a cheap-ass rationalization by those who'd prefer to sit on their asses and ensure that the flow of goodness comes to them. Oops, sucks to be the target of BS knee-jerk slurs, eh?
Yes, far, far better so cynically sit back and hurl insults while nihilistically not giving a fuck, which is really a front for attacking a philosophy that might crimp your personal wank-fest, all because the people suggesting changes don't meet your arbitrary standards of ideological purity.When it comes down to it, are those championing the 'greater good' actually willing to make the real sacrifices that their beliefs may require of them, for the betterment of humanity as a whole, or is it simply pompous posturing on the interwebs?
Why don't you just be honest and say "fuck 'em if they can't get theirs." The faux sanctimony is somewhat nauseating.
Two points made (governments and time frames)
1) I'll cite, well, all of history. Virtually ALL successful economies have been backed by governments that used power to manipulate markets. In many cases, the two were virtually indistinguishable (consider Venice, Florence and Genoa during the Renaissance). As examples that you may recognize, both the UK and then the US used projection of power and trade barriers (the former to remove barriers, the latter to ensure direction of flow of goods) to increase their own wealth, in a positive feedback loop of increasing power. What, you're not familiar with the economic wars of the US? Or the trade barriers before the modern era?
2) Prima facie. Show me markets with vision past ten years. Rare venture capitalists will invest in a project with a yield further than 5 years out. The vast majority are thinking about the next quarter, and strategizing for the 1-3 year range.
If the stakes are, as you believe, the end of the world as we know it, the mass destruction of life, property, and all we hold dear, yes I consider it to be hypocritical and heartless not to do everything in your power to stop it, especially in the area you are most capable of changing, your own personal actions. That you think otherwise speaks more to your credibility and integrity than my own.
Of course, I can't say I'm terribly surprised that you consider integrity to be fallacious.
As opposed to you, who lives a life dictated by needs, and needs alone? Is the air thinner upon that high, high horse? Can lack of oxygen possibly be a contributing factor to the complete lack of self analysis you are continually prone to?An important point, the distinction between needs and wants. For Rand, a widget producer, people having a philosophy of "the more widgets the better" is a no-brainer. Hell, he doesn't care what kind of widget. He just wants people to buy so his own wealth will increase.
Straw man. If you aren't actually going to address what I wrote, why are you wasting your time?Same BS argument wrt extremes. So nobody should ever push for a more humane/environmentalist/sustainable/whatever approach to things because they can't d it perfectly? Yeah, Chaloobi would be much better of eschewing all technology and going into the African bush to work as a Peace Corps volunteer. Compare the success of that group collectively with those who make systemic changes.
If you are going to slur me, could you at least make sure they make sense, and are applicable? Slur away if you must, but I don't think it's too much to ask for a little effort to go into them.Sound like a cheap-ass rationalization by those who'd prefer to sit on their asses and ensure that the flow of goodness comes to them. Oops, sucks to be the target of BS knee-jerk slurs, eh?
Because I genuinely believe in helping people, and I do so whenever I can. I don't pay lip service to my ideals all the while enjoying the benefits of that which I decry. If you are a true believer, (and to be frank, it's hard to tell what exactly you do believe, and what is just a posturing on your part) then I expect your beliefs to be backed by actions.Yes, far, far better so cynically sit back and hurl insults while nihilistically not giving a fuck, which is really a front for attacking a philosophy that might crimp your personal wank-fest, all because the people suggesting changes don't meet your arbitrary standards of ideological purity.
Why don't you just be honest and say "fuck 'em if they can't get theirs." The faux sanctimony is somewhat nauseating.
To be clear, I am not a true believer in a Malthusian catastrophe, but if you are I would expect a Herculean effort on your part to prevent it.
Not sure what you are getting at here. The fact that truly free markets haven't been tried is not a point scored in your favor. By that same token, can we use the thousands of failed economies that have been backed by governments that used power to manipulate markets as strikes against your argument?1) I'll cite, well, all of history. Virtually ALL successful economies have been backed by governments that used power to manipulate markets. In many cases, the two were virtually indistinguishable (consider Venice, Florence and Genoa during the Renaissance). As examples that you may recognize, both the UK and then the US used projection of power and trade barriers (the former to remove barriers, the latter to ensure direction of flow of goods) to increase their own wealth, in a positive feedback loop of increasing power. What, you're not familiar with the economic wars of the US? Or the trade barriers before the modern era?
False dichotomy. Having a plan and strategy for the next quarter does not negate having long term plans. I recently read an article that talked about IBM's R&D department, which invests millions, if not billions of dollars a year in long term R&D.2) Prima facie. Show me markets with vision past ten years. Rare venture capitalists will invest in a project with a yield further than 5 years out. The vast majority are thinking about the next quarter, and strategizing for the 1-3 year range.
Hell, look no further than current space entrepreneurs like Richard Branson with Virgin Galactic. If you think his vision for his company is only five to ten years, I think you're sadly mistaken.
Where did the initial funding for the space industry come from? Where will the funding for replacing energy infrastructure come from?
That's right.
I don't know if I can say the same. I rather liked Chaloobi.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 12-30-2010 at 09:09 PM.
Wow, epic distortion. I see you haven't changed. I'm done here, no point debating somebody who just outright lies.
okay but tear come on let's be nice, it's not often we get new people around these parts
Apart from that I myself agree with those responses. But if we must get personal I'd like to point out that I try to keep my consumption in check and I'd also be happy to give more of my money towards saving the planet esp. once I begin earning a proper income.
If I were to give up the miniscule portion of the internet's resources that I presently use, why, I think my campaigning would be severely hampered. What do you think?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I thought Enoch was GhostEnigma.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I was trying to figure out who he was too. Seems too familiar around here to be a newb. If it is GE, bravo to the improved name.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Huh? From Atari? Well, that would fit the political position. He's Libertarian IIRC.
I like your new avatar too.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Too many crosses, too few bodies. Empty crosses don't project the justice they were meant to deliver.I like your new avatar too.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
You know it might just be so that he really and honestly was thinking along those lines rather than trying to desroy your lifeI'm just saying man.
Wait what am I on about he's an old regular so clearly you should continue with your crazy
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That only matters if "survival of the species" matters, that is so far down on a list of priorities for me as to barely register. I'm sorry but I'm an atheist and have no religious need to propogate a species. You may believe that God said to Noah "go forth and multiply" and want to dream to recreate that vision but I care about the rest of humanity and don't view that as any success.
Sorry, I got confused, it was wiggin who said: "* Our population increases at about 200-250k a day. That means that you'd need to export millions of people a year to even make a dent in the numbers. "
Since there is no logical responses to anything but just two words suffice, let me try: Citation Needed.
Or let me try another two word: Bull Shit. Our population has never been higher, our life expectancy has never been longer, our prospects have never been better there is not a single objective measurement you'd use on any other species to put us on an even endangered let alone exinct list. You're talking nonsense while trying to be high any mighty about it.
Because I advocate doing stuff about real issues rather than make dreams about meeting magic men in the sky? No, its my attitude that makes society move on.That's an idiotic reason to do nothing. We'd be still living in caves if ancient humanity was motivated the way you advocate.
How is that an ace? How will it save the people on Earth?
Now there's a better argument. Still nowhere near the point though that it's remotely economical - but the science is advancing. A yardstick of success won't be inhabiting other worlds as a means to saving us though.
Provide evidence that we could do anything economical to save our problems.
Less consumption is not what society needs.
No actually. I believe in the best widgets. I strive to ensure my widgets are better than anybody else's widgets and want everybody to buy my widgets not someone else's.An important point, the distinction between needs and wants. For Rand, a widget producer, people having a philosophy of "the more widgets the better" is a no-brainer. Hell, he doesn't care what kind of widget. He just wants people to buy so his own wealth will increase.
Disagreed, actually both the US and the UK succeeded while having less manipulation than other nations. No nation ever has or ever would have no government, but then nobody says that so trying to argue against a straw man that has never happened proves nothing.Two points made (governments and time frames)
1) I'll cite, well, all of history. Virtually ALL successful economies have been backed by governments that used power to manipulate markets. In many cases, the two were virtually indistinguishable (consider Venice, Florence and Genoa during the Renaissance). As examples that you may recognize, both the UK and then the US used projection of power and trade barriers (the former to remove barriers, the latter to ensure direction of flow of goods) to increase their own wealth, in a positive feedback loop of increasing power. What, you're not familiar with the economic wars of the US? Or the trade barriers before the modern era?
All markets have visions past ten years. The whole point of "the invisible hand" is that you don't need to be centrally planning to succeed. The Soviets attempted what you suggest, the dead-hand of the State is no alternative for free innovation.2) Prima facie. Show me markets with vision past ten years. Rare venture capitalists will invest in a project with a yield further than 5 years out. The vast majority are thinking about the next quarter, and strategizing for the 1-3 year range.
But...it is economical. It's just that it's a long-term investment. We already have most of the technology needed. The real problem, I think, is that it'll take too long to see a return on the investment, and it ceases to matter that the return will be practically infinite (there are candidate asteroids out there that could supply all our metal needs at current rates for a million years). The time horizon problem again. Nobody wants to start it because even though the rewards are great and vast, it'll be a couple decades before we can start really collecting on them.Now there's a better argument
If we just sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting until somebody else does all the hard stuff for us, well maybe that will actually happen, but it'll be a much longer wait, and all on the backs of a handful of people. We'll be cheating ourselves out of at least several decades, if not centuries, of ridiculous levels of mineral wealth. And that's not even touching all the relatively unpredictable benefits these sorts of endeavors almost always bring.
Its going to be tough but you're (probably) going to learn one day that you didn't learn everything you need to know about the world and life in the study of business and economics and reading Ayn Rand. For example, the measures you think scream success, in the natural world portend disaster. And in the end, business and economics are just a cultural manifestation, whereas humanity is truely and permanently rooted in and governed by the natural world.
Who said anything about magic men in the sky??? And what you don't understand is that your idea of "moving on" is a relentless, uncontrolled, unplanned ride on a rocket ship that by all observed natural phenomena has to crash. And your further ideas that absolutely nothing should be done to adjust or plan for that crash is just to the right of lunacy.Because I advocate doing stuff about real issues rather than make dreams about meeting magic men in the sky? No, its my attitude that makes society move on.
Intentionally daft again I see. Think about this: maybe the goal I am talking about isn't saving the people of Earth. If you read what I wrote with some semblance of honesty and/or care you will see it says, and I paraphrase, that if the people of Earth cannot be saved, at least with extra-solar colonies some people, and life in general, would survive whatever catastrophe occurred on Earth. Duh. I guess its only an ace if you value the survival of humanity or life in general even when you or your descendants can't survive. If that doesn't matter to you, then I can understand why your jaw is slack with confusion.How is that an ace? How will it save the people on Earth?
When the inevitable happens, that will be the only measure of success and even people as confused as you will recognize it.A yardstick of success won't be inhabiting other worlds as a means to saving us though.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
It will take more than just a couple of decades to achieve what you're talking about - it will take a lot of time, money and technological progress. We already have the technological progress happening though, in a few decades our technology will be nothing like it is today - we are already starting to commercialise space, which will achieve far more than militarising it has done.
But collectively "we're" not doing that already.If we just sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting until somebody else does all the hard stuff for us, well maybe that will actually happen, but it'll be a much longer wait, and all on the backs of a handful of people. We'll be cheating ourselves out of at least several decades, if not centuries, of ridiculous levels of mineral wealth. And that's not even touching all the relatively unpredictable benefits these sorts of endeavors almost always bring.
What a joke that you complain like such a broken record about one military program, in order to contrast it with another military program.
I work in a highly competitive industry, a very dog-eat-dog one. If my widgets were to bad, I'd be unemployed. If another person could do their widgets better than mine, I'd either have to update mine or move on.we have never been as rich and as successful as we are today, we should cut down on welfare
if someone made better widgets you'd still want people to buy yoursyou're no better than Bell Labs
So in other words you have no reason at all to claim we're on the path to extinction; thought so.
[quote[Who said anything about magic men in the sky??? And what you don't understand is that your idea of "moving on" is a relentless, uncontrolled, unplanned ride on a rocket ship that by all observed natural phenomena has to crash. And your further ideas that absolutely nothing should be done to adjust or plan for that crash is just to the right of lunacy.[/quote] Evidence please of this impending crash.
No, I don't, why should we?Intentionally daft again I see. Think about this: maybe the goal I am talking about isn't saving the people of Earth. If you read what I wrote with some semblance of honesty and/or care you will see it says, and I paraphrase, that if the people of Earth cannot be saved, at least with extra-solar colonies some people, and life in general, would survive whatever catastrophe occurred on Earth. Duh. I guess its only an ace if you value the survival of humanity or life in general even when you or your descendants can't survive. If that doesn't matter to you, then I can understand why your jaw is slack with confusion.
What inevitable?When the inevitable happens, that will be the only measure of success and even people as confused as you will recognize it.
Sorry, not interested in your BS manipulation of facts and posts. Pass.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
